Short Political Editorial:
You work for the Guardian or the Economist. Your Editor in Chief has asked you to write an editorial on one of the following important political debates (please see the list below).
An editorial (or op-ed) is a short piece in which the author expresses an opinion on an important or timely topic in politics. As the audience is the wider public, the writing style should be sharp, clear and accessible to the average reader. The editorial usually makes an important claim and it is supported by evidence or arguments to convince readers or to back readers who already share the author’s view.
Topics for Editorial, Please choose from below:
- How do new technologies threaten democracy?
- Should the EU sanction member states sliding into authoritarianism?
- Is it time for the NHS to be privatized?
- Should NATO be dissolved?
- Is military intervention the only way to end the civil war in Syria?
Useful sources:
https://www.ft.com/content/b927be8a-198a-11e5-8201-cbdb03d71480 https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000002691088/how-to-write-an-editorial.html https://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/socstud/frame_found_sr2/tns/tn-26.pdf
How to write a political column - top tips What to write: Why should anyone care about your opinion? ● “Politics” is not a topic. Think small, specific, and relevant. ● What are you an expert in? (Internal politics of the Scottish Labour party, minutiae of parliamentary protocol and procedure, regulation of the audit market etc.) ● Read. Read widely. Read history (British and other countries), economics, sociology. ● Read other writers - ones you agree with and ones you don’t. What do they do that you like? What makes you recoil? How do they make their arguments convincing? ● Compare editorials. How is an op-ed in The Sun different from The Times? ● Follow the news obsessively. Read newspapers. Read hansard.parliament.uk. How to write: Never lose sight of the point STRUCTURE ● Start in the middle. You can fix the introduction and conclusion later. ● Have one main point and know what it is from the start. Keep it in mind throughout. ● Lead your reader through each stage of your argument like you’re a lawyer cross-examining a witness, guiding them to the conclusion you want them to come to. ● Back your points up with facts, quotes, stats. Not everything needs a citation, but numbers can make a point much more powerful. ● Your article should stand alone and be accessible to someone with little prior knowledge. ● Practise writing short. Experiment by making your argument in 100, 200, 500 words. ● Exercise: Take a paragraph out of your article and move it somewhere else. Does it affect the flow? If not, you need to rethink your structure. Each paragraph should flow from the next. ● You may have to cut your favourite point if it doesn’t fit. It’s sad, but do it. ● Exercise: Dissect someone else’s article. Does it fit together? Where are the flaws? ● Try explaining your point to non-political friends. If they don’t understand it, rethink your structure until they do. What arguments do you need to make to get to your main point? STYLE ● Convoluted language is a symptom of convoluted thought. ● Imagine you’re explaining something to a very bright, very engaged 11-year-old. ● Short sentences, simple grammar, no rhetoric. Don’t try to show off. Let your argument do the work. ● Be aware that we all use more jargon/shorthand than we think, so get someone else to read it. ● Don’t try to write like columnists you admire. Your own voice will come through naturally, if you have a strong argument and believe in it. Over time you’ll develop your own style. ● Know your audience’s level of expertise. You don’t need to say “UK Prime Minister Theresa May”, but you should probably explain who Olly Robbins is. Try not to patronise them. ● Check your spelling and grammar (and facts!) obsessively. OPENINGS AND ENDINGS ● Options for intros: in media res, start small and zone out, bait-and-switch, seemingly random story that turns out to be relevant, hit them with a statistic, play it straight. ● Options for endings: summary of points, call to action, revealing the elephant, call-back to start. ● Take the reader on a journey, make them feel comfortable that it’s ended. Reach a destination. ● If you leave your reader with one thing they didn’t know before, that’s a success. Remember, the reader does not owe you a second of their time. You have to earn it. Good luck! Assignment 2: Editorial 700 words, due 9 November 2018 4pm Criteria Upper first class (80+) First Class (70-79) Upper second class (60-69) Lower second class (50-59) Third class (40-49) Borderline Fail (35-39) Fail Below 35 (23-35) How accurate and contextual is the discussion Very Very Good Reasonably Some significant inaccuracies Important inaccuracies Muddled and inaccurate How well does the work display an understanding of complex situations and concepts Very Good Good Sound Basic Limited Absent How well are complex arguments and counter-arguments presented Very Very Good Reasonably Significant oversimplification with analysis Limited ability to evaluate Muddled analysis How well is the editorial supported with accurate and insightful evidence Evidence is highly relevant, reputable, and robust, supports position and is highly insightful Evidence is robust, reputable, and relevant Moderate use of evidence is robust, reputable, and relevant Moderate use of evidence is robust, reputable, and relevant Inadequate use of evidence or evidence that isn’t sufficiently robust, reputable or relevant Inadequate use of evidence or evidence that isn’t sufficiently robust, reputable or relevant. Or doesn’t support analysis No evidence Does the editorial take a clear and defended position Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Is the editorial persuasive, showing evidence of careful thought, analysis and evaluation Extensive and very thorough, demonstrates ability to challenge received explanations Very, demonstrates ability to challenge received explanations Yes, demonstrates ability to challenge received explanations Sound, demonstrates ability to challenge received explanations Basic Limited Absent Is the editorial pitched to its audience in a clear, coherent, and logical way Very Quite Quite Generally present Attempted but may lack coherence and direction Weak, difficult to follow, lacks direction Difficult to follow and lacks direction Is the editorial based on broad and relevant reading Yes Yes, relevant Yes, relevant Yes Some reading No No Is the editorial referenced consistently? Yes Yes Yes Yes Unclear referencing Unclear referencing and bibliography No Is the essay clear and fluent without spelling or grammar errors Yes Yes Yes Yes, for the most part Clarity and meaning may be impeded No No Is the material clearly structured, well organized, and adequate length Yes Yes Yes Reasonably Unfocused or too long/short Poorly organized and lacks structure or too long/short Lacks organization and structure and is too long/short How to write an editorial. Lecture by Rachel Cunliffe 2 How to write a political column What to write: Why should anyone care
about your opinion? How to write: Never lose sight of the point How to write: Convoluted language is a symptom
of convoluted thought How to write: If you leave your reader with one
thing they didn’t know before,
that’s a success.